FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Company's right to use twelve month contracts for new recruits
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the company's right to use twelve month contracts for new recruits. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18 January 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1 March, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. Workers recently recruited as Airport Police should be recruited on contracts of indefinite duration as opposed to twelve month temporary assignment/fixed term contracts.
2. The company is in breach of a 2003 collective agreement concerning staffing levels which envisaged 80 and which could grow in line with airport traffic. Passenger numbers have increased in the previous four years and are expected to continue to increase in future years.
3. The company has deviated from previous recruitment practices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The company operates its recruitment in accordance with its company policy, procedures and relevant agreements.
2. There is nothing in the 2003 collective agreement which states the definition or status of a contract or whether it is to be fixed or otherwise. The company has honoured and complied with the 2003 agreement. The staffing levels referred to in that agreement were at a point in time and are not relevant now.
3. At this point there is a requirement and business need to recruit staff on a twelve month contract basis to allow a full review of resources. The company submits that a mediator should be appointed to deal with all outstanding issues which will clarify future policing requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between Management and the Union over the utilisation of twelve month contracts/temporary assignments.
Twenty Airport Police Officers were recruited on temporary assignments from 1stJanuary 2016. All successful candidates who held other positions in the Company, a number of whom had been employed in the Airport Search Unit, were selected from a competition for the positions. They have undertaken the required training necessary for the job and are undergoing the required probation. The Union disputed the temporary nature of the assignments holding that they should have been appointed on a permanent basis.
Management stated that the reason that the positions were filled initially on a temporary basis for twelve months was to allow for a full review of resourcing requirements and to allow engagement to take place under the auspices of the Advisory Service of the WRC on the future of the Policing Service.
As it is has been confirmed that the Policing Service at the airport will be retained in-house therefore it is intended that discussions on the future needs of the Service will be conducted with all stakeholders.
The Court notes that those employees who successfully competed for the Airport Police Officers’ positions in 2015 attract increments in the normal fashion as laid down in Article 11 of the Airport Police and Fire Service 2003 Collective Agreement.
The Court has considered the submissions made by both sides. The Court notes that it is not disputed that there is a requirement for a review of the Policing Service due to the ever-changing nature of the business at the airport.
In all the circumstances, the Court is of the view that discussions should be entered into, assisted by an agreed Facilitator, to be conducted in a collaborative consultative process and to encompass all aspect of the future of the Policing Service at the airport. This process should be conducted in a timely fashion and be completed within six weeks of commencement. In the event that the parties cannot agree on a Facilitator, the Court will nominate a person. The Court recommends that on completion of this process the new Airport Police Officers, the subject of this claim, should have their employment status confirmed to provide them with certainty.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4 March 2016______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.